3 ms·

Energy politics in the public discourse was often dominated by environmental concerns, and there wasn't a singular focus on CO2 as we have now. Gas has been a

Energy politics in the public discourse was often dominated by environmental concerns, and there wasn't a singular focus on CO2 as we have now. Gas has been a popular choice, because it is a lot cleaner than coal / light oil / wood from a local pollution perspective. It burns cleanly, so switching to gas heating significantly reduces pollution in cities. Nuclear energy is NOT clean, because it has the huge unsolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste. Nobody wants radioactive waste anywhere near them, and there just isn't any place where you can put radioactive waste where it will be safe for a few hundred years. But the biggest reason for our fear of nuclear energy is Chernobyl. It's been 37 years, and Chernobyl is still a danger.

newbamboo 5y ago
Well it’s hard to accept German stupidity as the official narrative but there it is. Fear of radiation Uber Alles.
jonhohle 5y ago
Nuclear fuel is recyclable. The safe place to put it is back in a reactor. There are political reasons that doesn’t happen, but not technical reasons. Globally, nuclear has lower deaths per kWh than even wind, and significantly lower than natural gas or oil. From a US centric perspective, nuclear energy is by far the safest by an order of magnitude[0]. Even a catastrophe like Chernobyl resulted in the deaths of fewer people than a single year of oil and gas drilling. 0 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/?sh=f3c30935e197 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g...
- newaccount74 5y ago
  > Nuclear fuel is recyclable In theory, to some extent. But it's mostly an academic argument. The power plants that are currently in use that people are protesting against do not recycle their waste. This argument feels a lot like you are just passing the ball to the next generation. "Hey kids, we used up all the uranium for cheap power and left you with caves full of radioactive waste. But don't worry, you can recycle it!" As for the dangers of nuclear vs. gas, the big difference is where the danger is. Nuclear power plants bring the danger close to the population, and people just don't want that. And finally, another issue that noone appears to mention is that electric heating isn't very popular here. Most people heat their homes with gas furnaces, so even if we'd switch to nuclear power we would need to replace millions of furnaces and massively expand the electric grid. (This is slowly changing. Lots of new homes use good insulation and electric heat pumps for heating instead of gas, but it's not something that can be easily retrofitted in existing homes)
  - grandinj 5y ago
    The danger is illusory. Natural gas is more actually dangerous - see periodic fires from using it to hear things. And the amount of nyckear waste produced in the whole world is so small is doesn’t even register on any kind of “future problem” scale
yywwbbn 5y ago
And Chernobyl killed magnitude s less people in total than the number that dies directly or indirectly due to fossil furl emissions.

newbamboo 5y ago

Well it’s hard to accept German stupidity as the official narrative but there it is. Fear of radiation Uber Alles.

jonhohle 5y ago

Nuclear fuel is recyclable. The safe place to put it is back in a reactor. There are political reasons that doesn’t happen, but not technical reasons. Globally, nuclear has lower deaths per kWh than even wind, and significantly lower than natural gas or oil. From a US centric perspective, nuclear energy is by far the safest by an order of magnitude[0]. Even a catastrophe like Chernobyl resulted in the deaths of fewer people than a single year of oil and gas drilling. 0 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/?sh=f3c30935e197 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-g...

newaccount74 5y ago
> Nuclear fuel is recyclable In theory, to some extent. But it's mostly an academic argument. The power plants that are currently in use that people are protesting against do not recycle their waste. This argument feels a lot like you are just passing the ball to the next generation. "Hey kids, we used up all the uranium for cheap power and left you with caves full of radioactive waste. But don't worry, you can recycle it!" As for the dangers of nuclear vs. gas, the big difference is where the danger is. Nuclear power plants bring the danger close to the population, and people just don't want that. And finally, another issue that noone appears to mention is that electric heating isn't very popular here. Most people heat their homes with gas furnaces, so even if we'd switch to nuclear power we would need to replace millions of furnaces and massively expand the electric grid. (This is slowly changing. Lots of new homes use good insulation and electric heat pumps for heating instead of gas, but it's not something that can be easily retrofitted in existing homes)
- grandinj 5y ago
  The danger is illusory. Natural gas is more actually dangerous - see periodic fires from using it to hear things. And the amount of nyckear waste produced in the whole world is so small is doesn’t even register on any kind of “future problem” scale

yywwbbn 5y ago

And Chernobyl killed magnitude s less people in total than the number that dies directly or indirectly due to fossil furl emissions.